19:00:10 #startmeeting 19:00:10 Meeting started Thu Sep 19 19:00:10 2019 UTC. The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:00:10 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 19:00:22 hi 19:00:25 hi 19:00:25 hi 19:00:29 #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag provoostenator aj Chris_Stewart_5 dongcarl gwillen jamesob ken281221 ryanofsky gleb moneyball kvaciral 19:00:37 diegobz and glezos are here from Transifex 19:00:43 hi 19:00:46 hi all :) 19:00:53 Hi 19:00:53 I'm finally able to make it :P 19:00:53 welcome diegobz and glezos 19:01:08 hi 19:01:20 hi 19:01:24 hi 19:01:50 proposed topics for today are: 1) making better use of transifex 2 ) what to do with change output creation with bech32 (instagibbs) 3) android GUI (fanquake) 19:01:52 should we start with Transifex topic? 19:01:54 yes 19:02:03 #topic Making better use of transifex 19:02:39 glezos: diegobz: you had a few points of advice? 19:03:06 Happy to be able to help all and answer any Qs. Some recommendations for better use of Transifex is to develop a Glossary to improve consistency. Also, to make sure that the existing Translation Memory (past translations) are ones of good quality. 19:03:10 so I've only recently gained admin of the transifex org and there's a whole lot of new options but haven't been able to do much yet 19:03:51 Finally, as admins, you can look at the "Translation Checks" section in the Org Settings, where Transifex can auto-check for mistakes by translators which an break the build process (e.g. broke a variable) 19:04:03 glezos: thanks, is that glassary something we can configure on transifex itself, or is it something external? 19:04:22 in Transifex, it's part of the org itself, and available to everyone in the org 19:04:28 ah, so it can notice a %s vs %1 mismatch? 19:04:40 or "% 1" 19:04:49 yes. 19:04:49 oh that'd be useful, we have a script right now to check that, but having it integrated with instant feedback would be much better 19:05:01 There is a whole section on Translation Quality in the documentation site with screenshots and examples: https://docs.transifex.com/ 19:05:08 yeah, the script can only discard the translation entirely 19:05:52 @wumpus ideally you want to the checks to happen during translation so they get fixed right away. You can configure each translation check to raise a warning (allows translation save) or an error (blocks save) 19:06:20 so this glossary is something created by the org, and contains important words for the domain of the application (in this case, things such as block, transaction, wallet, etc) 19:06:33 glezos: good to know 19:06:33 glezos: is it likely to be a problem that we have mixed placeholder styles? 19:07:02 Yes. And you can have multiple glossaries (for each project, for example, if you have multiple projects) or share the same glossary across projects (all configurable on the org level) 19:07:42 I think right now we have multiple "projects" for each branch? 19:07:45 ba 19:07:51 oops 19:07:51 we have one project, multiple resources 19:07:55 ah 19:08:41 is it possible to add translations marked as "incomplete" until a real translator can get to it? sometimes strings change subtly and I can kind of guess a change to the prior translation, but would want a real translator to provide a new one eventually 19:09:21 luke-jr: glezos: yes so some messages have %1 %2 ... style, some have %s style, what is important is that it's consistent within a message 19:09:33 and sometimes if we simply append a parenthesis to a string "a (b)" for example, we could leave "a" translated and add " (b)" in English as an incomplete message 19:10:04 luke-jr, for something like that, we have a step called "Review". Empty → Translated → Reviewed. This way, you can choose, for example, to use the Transifex Client to only pull reviewed translations 19:10:26 once we get a lot more review going on, that'd make sense 19:10:50 glezos: so no stage between empty and translated? or a way to provide a string with "empty" status? 19:11:10 we need to establish per-language teams with known reliable team leaders 19:11:17 " ()" needs more than mere review 19:11:26 hi 19:11:35 luke-jr no in-between stage, no 19:11:43 warren: might make sense to do a notification on transifex to ask for people to come foreard 19:12:09 If they were active in past years it's a good sign maybe they should be a leader. 19:12:29 yes, has anyone been keeping track though? 19:12:45 dunno, I would assume transifex has the data of who did what 19:12:46 does Transifex even keep records of who did what? 19:12:51 yes they do 19:13:15 there's information on a per-message level at least, who translated it 19:13:25 wumpus you can do that using the Discussions and Announcements features, which notifies all teams. https://www.transifex.com/bitcoinorg/teams/10848/discussions/ https://www.transifex.com/bitcoinorg/bitcoinorg/announcements/ 19:14:06 wumpus correct. Also, there is a Reports feature at the top, which you can dig out historical activity information. 19:14:23 glezos: nice! 19:14:38 (come to think about it, I think the Reports are not available in the open source plan...) 19:14:47 glezos: (note this is "bitcoin", "bitcoin.org" is separate) 19:15:17 oops, thank you warren. 19:15:20 sorry about that. 19:16:42 ok, anyone with further questions about transifex? this is the time 19:17:05 wumpus: topics += qml (sorry for the interruption) 19:17:11 We have a Community site for any async questions, https://community.transifex.com 19:17:18 glezos: can you show examples of what the reports look like? 19:17:49 glezos: is it possible to get the raw historical author data via CLI? 19:17:52 warren: yes, https://docs.transifex.com/tracking/reports 19:18:19 luke-jr no, but reports can be exported as a CSV from the web app 19:18:59 but not if we don't have access to reports ;) 19:19:27 re [19:14:38] (come to think about it, I think the Reports are not available in the open source plan…) 19:19:36 indeed. ;) 19:20:14 (and if the raw data can't be exported, it's kind of vendor lock-in ☹) 19:20:18 glezos: this is a unique project in that here is no central entity to pay for services, I suppose one of the supporting companies or non-profits could pay for a service but that's outside the scope of these developer meetings. 19:20:40 happy to help y'all out though with the reports and share the data 19:22:25 ok, I think it's time to move to the next topic -- thanks a lot glezos and diegobz for being here and helping with answers and suggestions 19:22:32 you bet 19:22:55 #topic what to do with change output creation with bech32 (instagibbs) 19:23:10 so this is wrt #16884 19:23:11 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16884 | wallet: Change default address type to bech32 by instagibbs · Pull Request #16884 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:23:11 link: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15560#issuecomment-531796601 19:23:31 why would default type affect that? 19:23:54 it doesn't necessarily, we could mimick the other direction of course 19:24:38 The original motivation IIRC was something like we want to mimick the destination if they use bech32 because privacy and cheaper anyways 19:24:51 we didn't mimick legacy output destinations 19:25:05 Core doesn't support Lightning, so should just be using p2pkh by default, so I'm going to recuse myself from this topic since it has IMO flawed premises 19:25:37 so with a different default it'd simply be as if the user chose a different address type, right? 19:25:44 so you should agree with me, if user specifies p2sh-pwpkh change itshould just do it :P 19:25:48 it uses more weight 19:26:13 it seems we don't have many people here today with an opinion on this today 19:26:19 specific change up for q anyways: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16884/commits/eaab744a5058fd954c2c4985237941e99e30f062 19:26:24 in case someone sees this and wants to complain in the PR 19:26:25 :) 19:26:55 we can move on 19:27:02 yes 19:27:12 #topic High priority for review 19:27:47 let's do this topic as every work, though, it might be better to focus on things tagged 0.19 now than specifically tagged ones 19:28:02 ^ 19:28:06 agree 19:28:08 (because rc1 is planned for oct 1) 19:28:08 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/37 19:28:28 Also sanity testing 0.17.2 binaries when available. 19:29:06 yes, 0.17.2 code signatures were put up shortly ago 19:29:28 rc2* 19:29:34 Added 0.19 as blocker to high prio 19:29:36 rc2, yes, rc1 was DOA 19:29:42 (its a note in the project board) 19:29:52 MarcoFalke: thanks! 19:31:20 ok, that concludes this topic 19:31:44 Might want to do #16713 first instead of Mobile GUI, if anyone has an opinion. cc MarcoFalke 19:31:46 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16713 | Ignore old versionbit activations to avoid unknown softforks warning by jnewbery · Pull Request #16713 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:31:46 #topic android QML GUI (fanquake) 19:32:28 I don't really think this is the best time to discuss this, because of 0.19 coming up, seems more of a future topic, but maybe it makes sense to discuss 19:32:30 oh 19:32:34 Looks like this is worth exploring... 19:32:46 I also don't know what to discuss on that topic 19:33:08 dunno either, maybe better to keep it to github for now: #16883 19:33:10 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16883 | WIP: Qt: add QML based mobile GUI by icota · Pull Request #16883 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:33:18 Yes. Agree. 19:33:30 #topic Ignore old versionbit activations 19:33:38 #16713 19:33:40 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16713 | Ignore old versionbit activations to avoid unknown softforks warning by jnewbery · Pull Request #16713 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:33:48 Can't we switch the existing GUI to qml, so that there is only one for all devices (convergence, 2019, buzzword, ...) 19:33:50 I think we need to merge one of these before 0.19 to prevent false positivs 19:33:55 MarcoFalke: in the long term, yes 19:34:25 my take on #16713 is in one of the comments 19:34:27 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16713 | Ignore old versionbit activations to avoid unknown softforks warning by jnewbery · Pull Request #16713 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 19:34:43 it wasn't made easier by there being two competing PRs, and I kind of lost track 19:34:50 I think sdaftuar had some different thoughts on it 19:34:56 yes :) 19:35:04 Unsure if he is here rn 19:36:00 so maybe we want to do some quick low-impract change for 0.19 just to get rid of the undesired warnings, then for 0.20 go for a better solution 19:36:00 silence means ACK, right? 19:36:09 MarcoFalke: decisions are not made at meetings 19:36:16 (for just this reason) 19:36:20 I think he's joking ... 19:36:55 MarcoFalke: (re QML) I'm not sure a mobile UI and desktop UI have enough overlap 19:37:29 MarcoFalke: mobile devices have different use cases. You can't just "scale" the desktop UI. 19:37:51 but they could definitely share code 19:38:03 for sure 19:38:06 and have some QML in the desktop GUI, they just wouldn't be exaclty the same 19:38:16 would be nice to unify RPC and GUI transaction logic too 19:38:35 isn't that mostly the case? 19:38:38 no 19:38:46 we have 3 copies of the almost-same logic 19:38:51 in any case, I think we ran out of topics 19:38:55 indeed 19:39:21 mayebe we can bring up instagibbs' topic again next week if there's more people interested in discussing it 19:39:23 #endmeering 19:39:25 #endmeeting